Smt. Lakshmi vs Jagadish
2021 Latest Caselaw 467 Kant

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.9817 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMI
NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O GOPI
R/O NO.88, GOWRAMMA BUILDING
ANNEYAPPA ROAD
R.S.PALYA, M.S.NAGARA POST
BANGALORE-560 033.

                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. Y.RADHA, ADV.)

AND

1.    JAGADISH
      S/O ANJENAPPA
      KAMMAGOWDANAHALLI
      I.D.POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK
      TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                            2



2.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     MITTAL TOWERS
     KASTURBA ROAD
     BANGALORE.
                                ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 DISMISSED AS
NON PROSECUTION )

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV   ACT   AGAINST    THE JUDGMENT        AND AWARD
DATED:10.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7697/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL     CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION              THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 3.10.2010, the claimant was

traveling in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03-

B-8809 along with her family members near 3rd Cross,

Banaswadi Main Road, Jai Bharath Nagara, Bengaluru, at

that time, tata sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-

6843 came at high and in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act on the ground that she was working as a

house maid and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. It was

pleaded that she also spent huge amount towards

medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further

pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2

filed written statement in which the averments made in

the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the

petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.

The driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the

medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded

that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of

the petition. The respondent No.1 did not appear before

the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed

ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the respondents, one

witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal,

by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the

accident took place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result

of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal

further held that the claimant is entitled to a

compensation of Rs.16,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending

vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-

claimant has raised following contentions:

Firstly, the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the

liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the

ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

having valid licence as on the date of accident. Even as

per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba

and Anr. [AIR 2018 SC 592], even if the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as

on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable

to pay compensation to the claimant at the first

instance, with liberty to recover the same from the

owner of the offending vehicle.

Secondly, as per wound certificate, the claimant

has sustained fracture of middle 3rd shaft right clavicle

He has suffered fracture of right leg, waist, right

shoulder, right hand and other parts of the body.

Considering the same, the global compensation of

Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower

side.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has contended that driver of the

offending vehicle is not having valid driving licence as on

the date of the accident which amounts to violation of

the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the

claimant has sustained minor injuries in the accident and

he has not examined the doctor regarding the disability

suffered by him. Considering the nature of injuries, the

Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation.

Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties,

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant had

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident due to rash

and negligent manner driving of the offending vehicle.

As on the date of the accident, the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence.

Under the circumstances, as per the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and

Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. [AIR 2018 SC

592], even though the driver of the offending vehicle

did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of

the accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with

liberty to recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle.

In view of the above decision, this court is of the

opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation and later recover the same from the

owner of the offending vehicle.

10. In respect of quantum of compensation is

concerned, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained fracture of middle 3rd shaft right clavicle and

also undergone surgery. The claimant has not examined

the doctor regarding disability suffered by him.

Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained

by the claimant, the global compensation of Rs.16,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a.

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this judgment with liberty to recover the same

from the owner of the offending vehicle.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM